Sunday, April 19, 2009

This begins what I hope will be a discussion blog on all things related to the visual arts. I would like to begin this first blog by introducing myself, describing some of my background, and briefly explaining my work. I am an artist and an educator living in the Midwest. I have taught art courses at two different colleges and have exhibited nationally. I have also participated in several community development fundraising visual arts projects. These experiences have influenced my perceptions of art in American culture, and have enriched my own artistic endeavors. I strongly believe the visual arts are a tool for communication.
The idea of art as a tool for communication is a topic on which I have much to say, and I'm sure this will develop into a reoccurring theme. My art making is partially based on this idea and is meant to help communicate my memories of places I have been, and events I have experienced. The above image is an example of one of my recent works. It is titled "Church...going." Please feel free to comment or ask questions about it. This week I will be attending an Edvard Munch exhibition and I will be critiquing this show next week. More examples of my work can be found at

1 comment:

Art of the South said...

The work of Thomas Kinkade however, is regarded with more suspicion by art professionals. One of the reasons for this goes back to the artists intention. The work of Smithson in this case is examining the flow of lava from volcanoes, and is trying to emulate nature similarly to the way landscape painters emulate the terrain they paint. He is exploring an idea, and illustrating his findings from his explorations. Kinkade states that he is the "Painter of light" however, the fact that his images are placed on mugs, mouse pads, collectors plates and other items suggests that this artist has an entirely different motivator for making art. One that seems less like an exploration of ideas, and more like a desire to make money.

I am quoting from your Blog above, my comment is more of a question: If the work of Smithson were to become immensely popular, and if his work were sought out by licensees, would it then cease to be "Academic art"?

It seems that most of the critiques of Thomas Kinkade stem from his popularity, more than his style.